Democrats Start Positioning Themselves For Prohibition End

[Diogenes]

@ Skipjack

Sometimes it's between them, sometimes its nothing either proposes.

But usually the left and the Democrats want something derogatory of human rights in favor of pretend rights they dole out to special interest groups.

And the republicans are usually all good and completely unselfish? Oh please!!!
They all serve some lobbies, just slightly different ones.

There is some truth in this, but the problem is far worse on the other side of the aisle. Term Limits will tend to improve this problem on both sides of the aisle. If people cannot long remain in a position of power, they won't be able to build these lobbyist support structures and therefore won't feel any need to cater to lobbyists.

Both side have good ideas at times, dismissing an idea, because it came from the other side is counterproductive and not in the best interest of the people.

I disagree. I've kept up with politics for a very long time, and I likewise study history quite a bit. I cannot lay my hand on any idea which ever came from Democrats that turned out to be a good idea. Most of them were unmitigated disasters. Can you name an idea which came from Democrats that turned out to be actually a good idea?

[Stubby]

Economy Surprise!

Now i am gonna half to read the book.

[Diogenes]

This is to Skipjack.





I do not know if you have the command of English necessary to digest this, but if you do, I think this speech by George Will will go far in enlightening you as to the benefits to a nation of being Pro-Theism.


http://rap.wustl.edu/wp-content/uploads ... e-text.pdf

[Diogenes]

Economy Surprise!

Now i am gonna half to read the book.

There is no doubt that borrowing and spending creates economic activity that resembles prosperity. I am willing to give the Democrats credit for that provided they take responsibility for this.



It's the piper calling, and he wants his money.

[Stubby]

This is to Skipjack.





I do not know if you have the command of English necessary to digest this, but if you do, I think this speech by George Will will go far in enlightening you as to the benefits to a nation of being Pro-Theism.


http://rap.wustl.edu/wp-content/uploads ... e-text.pdf

the words 'under god' are not pro-theist but pro-christian. They exclude hindus, shinto, muslims, atheists among other and not to mention all your first nations.

'in god we trust' on your money is the same thing.

Likewise, intelligent design, is pro-christian and excludes all other creationist claims from other faiths.

All the above are the ever distressing signs that the only secular nation on earth is being converted to a fundamentalist christian society. The Iran or Saudi Arabia of the christian world.

[TDPerk]

the words 'under god' are not pro-theist but pro-christian. They exclude hindus, shinto, muslims, atheists among other and not to mention all your first nations.

Of course you'll have no problem backing up that ridiculous assertion.

[Stubby]

In what way is it ridiculous? Anybody with a rational brain can figure out that any mention of god(s) is divisive.

As for proof, the easiest ones are hindus and shintos since they are polytheistic. Need more?

[Skipjack]

@ Skipjack

Sometimes it's between them, sometimes its nothing either proposes.

But usually the left and the Democrats want something derogatory of human rights in favor of pretend rights they dole out to special interest groups.

And the republicans are usually all good and completely unselfish? Oh please!!!
They all serve some lobbies, just slightly different ones.

There is some truth in this, but the problem is far worse on the other side of the aisle. Term Limits will tend to improve this problem on both sides of the aisle. If people cannot long remain in a position of power, they won't be able to build these lobbyist support structures and therefore won't feel any need to cater to lobbyists.

Both side have good ideas at times, dismissing an idea, because it came from the other side is counterproductive and not in the best interest of the people.

I disagree. I've kept up with politics for a very long time, and I likewise study history quite a bit. I cannot lay my hand on any idea which ever came from Democrats that turned out to be a good idea. Most of them were unmitigated disasters. Can you name an idea which came from Democrats that turned out to be actually a good idea?

Commercial Crew for the ISS. Funding for stem cell research. Apollo programme, just to name three.

[TDPerk]

In what way is it ridiculous? Anybody with a rational brain can figure out that any mention of god(s) is divisive.

As for proof, the easiest ones are hindus and shintos since they are polytheistic. Need more?

Of course. You still haven't provided the first. God is a pronoun in the common usage, meaning the divine. It does not impugn polytheism. The Christian name for God is YWH or Jehovah, or Yahwey, depending in the tradition involved.

[TDPerk]

Commercial Crew for the ISS. Funding for stem cell research. Apollo programme, just to name three.

CC for ISS, contract let under Bush Admin to SpaceX.
Democrat driven fetal stem cell research stagnates without success, privately funded adult stem cell research is already providing cures.
Apollo programe was a cold war effort supported by R and D (obseesively opposed by the D senator Prozxmire,a dn maligned by social progressives--aka Democrat operatives--because it diverted spending from social justice goals).

Out of three tries you've maybe got a quarter point for Kennedy (D) kicking off the space race to the moon; as if, say Eisenhower (R), opposed rocket research.

[Stubby]

In what way is it ridiculous? Anybody with a rational brain can figure out that any mention of god(s) is divisive.

As for proof, the easiest ones are hindus and shintos since they are polytheistic. Need more?

Of course. You still haven't provided the first. God is a pronoun in the common usage, meaning the divine. It does not impugn polytheism. The Christian name for God is YWH or Jehovah, or Yahwey, depending in the tradition involved.

even if what you say is relevant or true it still excludes non-believers.

[TDPerk]

Then they should feel excluded...there is no right not to be offended about the fact one holds a view so drastically in the minority, let alone something which neither breaks your knees nor picks your pocket.

De minimis is the principle applying to any such violation of such rights of an atheist, if in fact it is one.

"God is an ever receding pocket of scientific ignorance."

God is a concept no scientific inquiry can make any meaningful comment about.

It is an immense conceit and evidence of your willful ignorance you think otherwise.

[hanelyp]

Apollo got us into space quickly. The architecture produced was by no measure sustainable.

[Stubby]

Then they should feel excluded...there is no right not to be offended about the fact one holds a view so drastically in the minority, let alone something which neither breaks your knees nor picks your pocket.

De minimis is the principle applying to any such violation of such rights of an atheist, if in fact it is one.

"God is an ever receding pocket of scientific ignorance."

God is a concept no scientific inquiry can make any meaningful comment about.

It is an immense conceit and evidence of your willful ignorance you think otherwise.

You are absolutely right. Science has absolutely nothing to say about the existence of a god.

However things formerly attributed to god, have now been explained by science. And science will continue to explain things attributed to god and as such it is possible to say god is shrinking because scientific knowledge is growing.

I should point out that the quote is from Neil DeGrasse Tyson in response to Bill O'Reilly's rant about tides and god. I will amend my sig.

[Stubby]

As for your de minimis argument. Do you want to set a precedent for a group of people to be discriminated against based on their choice of religious practice? And to try to use numbers of adherents as a reason to discriminate... really. What would be your magical number of adherents to prevent discrimination?


In order to protect everyone's religious freedom, the government must not promote any religious idea or doctrine more than any other. There are 2 ways to do this:
Promote them all equally or promote none.

It is impossible to promote them all equally especially since many are mutually exclusive. That leaves promoting none. It is amazing how many people fail to grasp this.

Nothing is being said about what beliefs you should hold or anything like that.
I have mine and you have yours.

PS
Having looked into the source of the inclusion of the words in the pledge.

The Knight of Columbus started a campaign to have the words included.
Your government went with it because of fear of the godless communists.

and

"From this day forward, the millions of our schoolchildren will daily proclaim in every city and town, every village and rural schoolhouse, the dedication of our nation and our people to the Almighty."